HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 V. Maþiulis e.g.: br`ti (III) ‘brother’ (cf. above mentioned E brote ‘idem’), s`lin III = *z`lin ‘grass’ (cf. above mentioned E soalis ‘idem’) 13 . The spellings kaltz` (III) ‘(it) sounds’, mait` (III) ‘nourishes’ etc. reflect final accented *-` < *-`j < *-`ja (Endzelîns SV 113, Stang Vergl. Gr. 360), cf. also * 228. * 17. A relic of Balt. *ô (< IE *ô) = Pr. *ô (which was closer than Balt. *¯É = *`) is reflected in the Catechisms in spellings o and (III) ô, e.g.: perôni (III) ‘community’ (PEÞ III 267), acc. sg. perôniskan (III), perroniscon (I) ‘idem’, tickrômai (III) ‘right(ful)’ (cf. Stang Vergl. Gr. 48; cf. * 63). This Cat. *ô was accented (!) but its phonetic quality was ca. *×ô (narrowed *ô) or even * ×ôû. Being accented, it turned into Pr. Cat. *û resp. (diphthongoid) * ×ôû after LG, cf. (III) pûton ‘to drink’, poûton ‘idem’, poût ‘idem’ (PEÞ III 364 f.). Having turned into *û resp. (diphthongoid) * ×ôû after LG, it coincided with original Pr. (Cat.) *û / * ×ôû < Balt. *û, but did not coincide with Pr. (Cat.) *û which had arisen after LG from Pr. *¯É, because the latter never underwent diphthongization (cf. * 16) 14 . 13 One should pay attention to striking parallelism in spelling “broadened” ea (cf. * 14) = *ç and not-“broadened” e or ee, beside “broadened” (?) oa = *¯É and not-“broadened” o = *¯É in the Elbing Vocabulary: seabre – steege, peadey – seese, teansis – peempe, and even seamis – semo < *-…ei-! beside soalis – wosee, moazo – sosto, doalgis – dongo, and even moasis < *-ãi- ! (2x) – grosis. Why were *-ç- < *ç and *-ç- < *…ei uniformly broadened? What was the reason of broadening *-ç- in seamis = *zçmîs < *z…eimîs and not broadening *-ç- in semo < *z…eim¯É ? On the other hand, there is no doubt that the word for ‘winter’ (semo) is oxytone (cf. Lithuanian and Slavic) and that the spelling wosee reflects an oxytone word. As for the “broadened” ea, oa, they are never met in the final position. This resembles narrowing of unaccented uo > o before an accented syllable in North-Panevezys sub-dialects, cf. Lith. dial. pod…el i s < puod…elis on the one hand (Zinkevièius Z., Lietuviø dialektologija, Vilnius 1966, 88), and diphthongization of the lengthened accented a in stems (not in endings!) in Minia Samogitian sub-dialect on the other hand, cf. Lith. dial. võaþi < v…aþá (ibid. 51 with the reference to Bezzenberger about similar fate of the stressed long ` in Prussian Lithuanian). Therefore I should like to explain (E) ea, oa as under the stress diphthongized ç, *¯É. This in its turn allows to define place of the accent in words (E) seabre, peadey, teansis, seamis, soalis, moazo, doalgis, moasis with the stressed stem vs. steege, seese, peempe, semo, wosee, sosto, dongo, grosis with the stressed ending (cf. Klusis M. Prûsø kalba, I, Vilnius 1989, 22–23). If so, the spelling peempe reflects lengthened first component of the tautosyllabic -em- in unstressed position (the ending *-ç being stressed). – L.P. 14 In other words, the fate of new *û < *¯É after LG and of new *û < *×ô after L, G was the same: no subsequent diphthongization took place. – L.P.
HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN * 18. In several instances Balt. *ô is reflected in Pr. Cat. ` (not after LG), cf. (III) d`t ‘to give’, d`twei ‘idem’ (cf. Lith. dƒuoti, Latv. du°ot < Balt. *dô-), d`ts (III) ‘given’, dats (I) ‘idem’, daeczt (II) ‘idem’ = d`ts. This ` came to being in the following way. The root vowel Balt. *ô was unstressed in oxytone forms of this verb [the verb belonged to mobile type of accentuation, of what the “broken” tone in Latvian is the best evidence – L.P.]. As unstressed, this *ô was broad *¯É and thus coincided with Balt. *¯É < (=) Balt. *`, i.e. so-called neutralization of */ô/ and */¯É = *`/ took place. Since 2 different root-vowels are not desirable in paradigm of the same word, one of the both had to be generalized onto the whole paradigm. In Prussian this was the unstressed *¯É. Thus Balt. *dô- ‘to give’ turned into WBalt. *d¯É ‘idem’ > Pr. Cat. (not E!) *d`-. At the same time the accented vowel *ô was generalized onto the whole paradigm in Eastern Baltic what caused the appearance of Lith. dƒuoti, Latv. du°ot (cf. PEÞ I 181 s.v. d`t with bibl.); cf. also * 19. It is not easy however to define the phonetic quality of the vowels -o-, resp. -oa- in words (E) podalis, woasis: it might have been Pr. (E) *¯É (< Balt. *-ô-) there, not Pr. (E) *ô, cf. PEÞ III 302 s.v. podalis, PEÞ IV 259 s.v. woasis. Cf. also * 94 (sîru). * 19. Not once has it been said (cf. Bibliography apud Girdenis Baltistica XIII 302 tt., Palmaitis VBR III 15 ff.), that Prussian vocalism, as well as Lithuanian and Latvian vocalism, implies reconstruction of the vowel-quadrangle (not a triangle) 15 in Common Baltic: short long *i *u *î *û /0 *ô *e *a (= *É) *ç *` (= *¯É) 15 Vowels are classified according to place of their articulation: (Balt.) front /e/, /ç/, /i/, /î/ vs. back /a/, /`/, /ô/, /u/, /û/ (correlation in zone), low /e/, /ç/, /a/ (/É/), /`/ (/¯É/) vs. middle /ô/ vs. high /i/, /î/, /u/, /û/ (correlation in rise of tonge). The sign /0 marks absence of a correlate (see table) – L.P. 21
Page 1: Vytautas Maþiulis HISTORICAL GRAMM
Page 4 and 5: 4 4. Declination of adjectives / 63
Page 6 and 7: 6 Abbreviations A. Sources and bibl
Page 8 and 9: 8 V. Maþiulis VBK - Vakarø baltø
Page 10 and 11: 10 impf. - imperfect indecl. - inde
Page 12 and 13: 12 V. Maþiulis Preface The researc
Page 14 and 15: 14 V. Maþiulis For the Prussian ac
Page 16 and 17: 16 V. Maþiulis and Latv. e, cf.: P
Page 18 and 19: 18 V. Maþiulis ‘life’ there: n
Page 22 and 23: 22 V. Maþiulis I consent to the op
Page 24 and 25: 24 V. Maþiulis Pr. *s has been tur
Page 26 and 27: 26 V. Maþiulis blauzdÑkaulis / bl
Page 28 and 29: 28 V. Maþiulis b) `-stems (fem.) d
Page 30 and 31: 30 V. Maþiulis ing” and I consid
Page 32 and 33: 32 V. Maþiulis * 59. Suf. *-ôn wa
Page 34 and 35: 34 V. Maþiulis With Pr. suf. *-ôl
Page 36 and 37: 36 V. Maþiulis b) from adjectives,
Page 38 and 39: 38 V. Maþiulis 159), melato (E)
Page 40 and 41: 40 V. Maþiulis 3. DECLINATION OF S
Page 42 and 43: 42 V. Maþiulis dumis = *dûmis ‘
Page 44 and 45: 44 V. Maþiulis (not -s as in nom.
Page 46 and 47: 46 V. Maþiulis of attempts to rega
Page 48 and 49: 48 V. Maþiulis * 102. This “nasa
Page 50 and 51: 50 V. Maþiulis it turned into Pr.
Page 52 and 53: 52 V. Maþiulis * 111. Dat.pl. is f
Page 54 and 55: 54 V. Maþiulis this is not an iÙa
Page 56 and 57: 56 V. Maþiulis * 122. Acc. sg. -ie
Page 58 and 59: 58 V. Maþiulis in (> Lith. -á) be
Page 60 and 61: 60 V. Maþiulis These forms are rar
Page 62 and 63: 62 V. Maþiulis any declension was
Page 64 and 65: 64 V. Maþiulis * 147. Other a / `-
Page 66 and 67: 66 V. Maþiulis bibl.). This word (
Page 68 and 69: 68 V. Maþiulis usts / uschts, fem.
Page 70 and 71:
70 V. Maþiulis * 160. Acc. sg. mas
Page 72 and 73:
72 V. Maþiulis * 164. Nom. pl. mas
Page 74 and 75:
74 V. Maþiulis this is an innovati
Page 76 and 77:
76 V. Maþiulis * 180. I regard Pr.
Page 78 and 79:
78 V. Maþiulis Nom. 2 pers. toû (
Page 80 and 81:
80 V. Maþiulis hypotheses concern
Page 82 and 83:
82 V. Maþiulis Possessive pronouns
Page 84 and 85:
84 V. Maþiulis new form 1 pers. sg
Page 86 and 87:
86 V. Maþiulis * 212. Note. 1 pers
Page 88 and 89:
88 V. Maþiulis c) i-stems * 216. T
Page 90 and 91:
90 V. Maþiulis Endzelîns SV 109,
Page 92 and 93:
92 V. Maþiulis in singular103 ); f
Page 94 and 95:
94 V. Maþiulis * 227. One can assu
Page 96 and 97:
96 V. Maþiulis The past tense Simi
Page 98 and 99:
98 V. Maþiulis I wedais ‘idem’
Page 100 and 101:
100 V. Maþiulis Infinite verbs Inf
Page 102 and 103:
102 V. Maþiulis Passive present *
Page 104 and 105:
104 V. Maþiulis Passive present Th
Page 106 and 107:
106 V. Maþiulis Adv. etkûmps ‘a
Page 108 and 109:
Prof. Dr. Habil. Vytautas MAÞIULIS
Page 110 and 111:
110 V. Maþiulis Prof. Dr. Hab. Vyt
show all

HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?